Clinical profile of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attending tertiary care hospital


  • Guruprasad Kalyanrao Y. Department of Dermatology, KBNIMS, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India
  • Ashok Kumar B. Nagure Department of Dermatology, Bidar Institute of Medical sciences, Bidar, Karnataka, India



Parthenium hysterophorus, Contact dermatitis, Allergic


Background: Contact dermatitis is an inflammatory response of the skin to various antigens and irritants. It accounts for a formidable proportion of dermatological consultations. It accounts for a formidable proportion of dermatological consultations. It is associated with significant morbidity, and it is one of the most common reasons for workmen’s compensation claims for skin diseases.

Methods: The Methodology included detailed history especially of potential sensitisers in the environment, occupation, hobbies, any contact with external application of cosmetics, drugs, ointments. Emphases on past history were recorded regarding the mode of presentation, progression, medication taken and their effect on allergic contact dermatitis.

Results: Allergic contact dermatitis due to Parthenium hysterophorus accounts for 80 (64%) cases, allergic contact dermatitis due to wearing apparel and jewellery accounts for 21 (16.8%) cases, due to topical medicaments 10 (8%), allergic contact dermatitis due to cosmetics and occupational (professional) antigen constituting 7 (5.6%) each.

Conclusions: The most common and important mode of contact is from the pollen or dried leaf fragments flying in the air which settles on the skin, clothes and induces allergy which is known as Air borne contact dermatitis, this is more common in men, outdoor professions or those who spent more time in outdoor including froresters, labourers, engineers, sports person, hunters, gardeners and farmers.


Bajaj AK. Contact dermatitis. In: Bajaj AK, editor. IADVL Text book and atlas of dermatology. 1st Ed. Bombay: Bhalani publishing house; 1994: 379-394.

Klaus MV, Wieselthier JS. Contact dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 1993;48:629-32.

Sauders DN. Allergic contact dermatis, in pathogenesis of skin disease. Churchill living stone; 1986: 4-9.

Singhl G, Aberer W. The langerhan cell, in Biochemistry and physiology of skin. In: Gold Smith LA, editor. Volume 11. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 1983:917.

Pasricha JS. General features. In: JS pasricha, editors. Contact dermatitis in India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: The offsetters; 1988: 2-5.

Ching M, Webster G, Goss AN. Allergy to Gloves. Aust Dent J. 1994;39:212-3.

Meding B, Marank BL. Hand Eczema in car Mechanics. Contact dermatitis. 1994;30:129-34.

Baruah MC, Singh R. Contact dermatitis in Delhi. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 1978;44:328.

Mackoff S, Dahl AD. A botanical consideration of weed oleoresin problem. Minnessota Med. 1951;34:1169.

Tiwari VD, Sohi AS, Chopra TR. Allergiv contact dermatitis due to Parthenium hysterophorus. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 1979;45:392-400.

Bruze M, Fregert S, Gruvberger B. Patch testing with cement containing iron sulphate. Contact dermatitis dermatologic clinics; 1990;8:173-6.

Christensen OB. Nickel dermatitis an update. Dermatologic Clin. 1990;8;37-40.

Anderson K. Cutaneous reactions to epoxy-coated pacemakers. Arch Dermatol. 1979;115:97.

Pasricha JS. Contact dermatitis caused by wearing apparel and jewellery Contact dermatitis in India. 1988;8:54.






Original Research Articles